Use one of the previous doctors! It's reasonable enough. There's absolutely no reason why Rose couldn't end up Paul McGann, Richard E. Grant or Tom Baker.
There's absolutely *no* reason why they can't do this. I mean, if you've ever written an Windows installer before you know it's trivial to check to see if an application is installed and cause it to uninstall itself. I mean, what do people think the "Add/Remove Programs" dialogue box does? It checks the registry to get a list of intalled apps, and builds the list from what's in there. All the necessary details are in that cluster.
And that's only when you're thinking about standalone upgrades. And jeeze, it's not as if uninstalling FF or TB wipes all your data or anything.
No I wasn't. I'm at home for christmas and all they have here is slow (and expensive) dialup. I was trying to be brief.
If the US went into bankrupcy, you can bet that last Euro won't be worth much.
If the US Dollar is still the world currency, yes, but then my point was that that fact is far from permanent.
Europe relies on our captial markets as does China.
For now, but you've gotta love globalisation!
It would trigger a world wide depression as each economic region, if not country, would be forced into reling on it's own internal engine, which is smaller as parts than whole. Stagnation would rule everywhere.
If it happens tomorrow or next year, yes. But you're missing my point: what I'm trying to get across is that economically the US's status as a superpower is slipping away. It's inevitable, and quite frankly the US has had a good innings since the start of the century.
You know how you go bankrupt when you're in lots of debt? That's because you can't find the money to pay it off. You know what the difference between you and a state is? Taxes.
If the US is finding itself having difficulty paying off its debts, it can raise taxes. Seeing as the US government can raises taxes as high as it wants, the chances of going bankrupt are just nil.
No it can't. It can only push them up so much before the rise itself begins to hurt the economy and hurt it bad. More likely is that government services, from health to education to infrastructure, will be scaled back. Last one to go will be the military (of course).
If the US government ever goes bankrupt, I'd recommend you go find your old Y2K shelter, because the global economy would collapse instantly.
No. The world economy isn't as tightly coupled to the US economy as it used to be. The Euro is quickly turning into an alternative world currency to the US Dollar, just as the US Dollar took that role from Sterling. And there are very few US companies these days; multinationals are just that: multinational. Just because their corporate HQ is in one country rather than another doesn't mean a thing these days.
It's obvious that you have no idea whatsoever how much the rest of the world relies on US Treasuries to hedge risk. This is not to mention the _catastrophic_ consquences on the US economy.
The world relies on it less and less these days. And yes, you could throw back the fact that China owns a whole heap of Treasury Bonds, but that, like any investment, is only as good as it is at the moment. Once it sours, they'll be out like a flash.
Back when I was still using RISC OS (an experience I would gladly go back to if I'd the money for a new machine), all our apps were packaged in their own directory. It all worked tremendously well! This page explains it well enough. There's no sense in me rehashing the whole thing here. Really, go take a read of that.
Oh, and I don't think the RISC OS FontManager's antialiasing has yet been beaten when it comes to quality. Nope, it's still the best font rendering engine around.
You're right on the speed bit, but not the analogue: consider the SID. Now, the reason why that's such a bitch to emulate effectively is because it's almost horribly analogue.
Chip fabrication is not cheap, therefore it really is difficult to get into the chip design field.
Tell that to Chuck Moore. He designed his MISC processors on a shoe string, and managed to fab them quite cheaply.
The difference is he used an inexpensive fab process as he didn't need to scale things down quite as aggressivly as the likes of IBM, Texas Instruments, Intel, &c. need to. There are independent fabs out there, and the software for designing the chips is freely available: you don't need to use SPICE as there's plenty of cheaper alternatives.
If I understood you correctly, I'd say you feel that Socialism is that ideal balance between Laissez-faire and Communism, but please tell me if I've misinterpreted.
You have (and I hope I'm not misinterpreting you either!). Mind you, Social Democracy isn't the same thing as socialism. All it is is an attempt to balance commerce with the best interests of society. The problem with Social Democracy in Europe is that it doesn't obey the Principle of Subsidiarity. Too much is vested in central government, and not enough in local government, communities, and individuals. Switzerland does things somewhat better in this regard than the rest of Europe. New Zealand used to be a good example of social democracy working, that is until a bunch of anarcho-capitalists decided on principle that state assets and services should be privatised regardless of how well they worked. Roads, hospitals, schools, utilities, you name it. The same kind of attitude in the UK lead to the destruction of one of the best rail networks in the world.
In any system of government, problems arise when the various parts become intertwined. It's hardly good to have people with connections with the chemical industry in charge of an environmental protection agency, or to have an ombudsman's office under the control of the agency they're supposed to be monitoring. The same goes for unions too, and government meddling in the affairs of the judiciary and regulatory industries. I'd say you'd agree with that.
Mind you, there are things we might not agree on. For instance, I think there should be a 100% estate tax on estates over EUR2.5m (an arbitrary figure, but it sounds fair enough). The principle is that a rich layabout is no better than a poor one, and layabouts shouldn't be encouraged. The idea that somebody can ride on the merits of an ancestor along, is mindboggling. Everybody, regardless of background, should have to prove their worth.
In short, I'm not a great lover of taxing earned income though. That discourages those who get off their asses to do something for themselves. But unearned income (inheritance, rents, dividends, etc.) I'd tax to the hilt.
Regulation and government are two different things. Government sets up regulatory bodies, and these bodies ensure that the sector they monitor is acting properly. Above them we have the ombudsmen as a recourse by the public and business if the regulatory bodies outstep their remit, or fail to uphold it. And, as you said, problems arise when anybody tries to disrupt these checks and balances.
Sorry for the ramble. I got a little offtopic!:-) I'm off to work on my real-time assignment.
Where did you get these statistics from ? And at what dollar point exactly is the poverty line ? It sounds like you're pulling stats out of thin air to make your point.
That's fair enough. The correct figure is actually 23%, but I'd misrembered it as 50%. I was tired, so I apologise. The argument it supported still stands.
Again, failed by whose definition? I assume you're talking solely about Europe here, although I have doubts. You have to keep in mind that Europe was not and still isn't united, at least not at all like the US. Two world wars might have had something to do with it too.
No, I'm talking about Europe, but you could focus in on any part of it and you'll see it born out again and again. Marx and Engels' communism was a reaction against laissez-faire capitalism on the continent. The Fabians, Keynes, and a whole host of others in britain to. The anarchists. You name it. This was going on long before WW1, never mind WW2. Even before the European Coal and Steel Community (the precursor to the EU), social democratic policies were being taken on board by governments independently of one another. And remember, WW2 didn't really touch Sweden, and yet you still got SD.
My point was that European countries, the UK most of all, were the first places to really try laissez-faire, and it failed. Laissez-faire Capitalism and Communism have the same problem: they're systems only angels could live within. Captialism is just more robust. Both need to be tempered to avoid humanity's more unpleasant traits ruining the show. A free market is a good thing, but companies need to be accountable to society as a whole rather than just their shareholders.
Government was around long before anything that remotely ressembled the current business model evolved. Back when peasants were trading and bartering oxen for loaves of bread or beanstalk seeds, governments were around to tax, oppress,punish, enforce laws, and take land from it's people as well as from people outside their established borders. If anything, history has shown that governments, more so than businesses, abuse and exploit people. But not all governments, naturally, just as not all businesses are crooked.
I don't disagree with you. That's the point behind this whole crazy democracy racket we've got going. It's a vain attempt to ensure government is accountable. Elected officials are the counterweight to the permanent government that's (in theory) supposed to make sure they do what's in society's interests. Of course, that only works if the electorate stays on the heels of their representatives. But you know what Churchill said about democracy...
Anytime you get into broad generalizations you're stepping into a troublesome area.
That's true. You see, I don't think either are wrong. Human enterprise is to be encouraged, but it also needs to be regulated so that it does the minimum of harm. Not all businessmen are Bernard Rapaport!:-)
Yes we do. That's exactly the point of laws. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Not only that, but many laws are subjective. Some are just plain wrong. Some are even repealed.
What I mean is that Jim and Alice aren't liable to go and break into Fred's house, but Paul might and the legislation is there to prevent him from doing so. Equally, Alice might like to speed, and there's legislation for her too, but Paul might be quite a safe driver. Laws are there for those who would break their contract with the rest of society, not for those who wouldn't.
We should not fall victim to the mindset that "Corporations are Evil, Government is Good". Human nature is what it is, some are good, some are bad, most are somewhere in-between. But I would agree that the two form something of a system of checks and balances in today's times.
Question: have you ever worked in construction, or a factory, or, goddamnit, done any job that didn't involve sitting on your ass for hours on end?
You're talking about white-collar workers. Most unions are blue-collar. It's hard physical work. Why do you think I mentioned the fish processing factory? Programmers complain about RSI, but the women who work in those places end up with the hands of seventy-year-olds by the time they're thirty. And for shit wages too.
Personally, I like working for a company that treats me properly. I don't care about getting a huge six-figure salary, but I do want enough so that I and my family can live comfortably on. That's all.
People pay what they think you are worth.
No, they pay as little as they can get away with. If people were paid what their labour was worth, there'd be, by definition, next to no profits!
Except that most unions make it extremely difficult to fire someone. They can also make it extemely difficult to hire a more qualified person at a higher level instead of promoting from within.
Yes, some do. But using the same brush to tar them all is just nonsense. Next thing you'll be telling me that everybody in Wyoming is just like the Marlboro man!
And tell me: who can really justify paying top-level management the salaries they get. I mean, after a certain point, it becomes ridiculous. I mean, I can't see how any VP makes more than seven (arbitrary number, mind you) times more than one of the plebs on the factory floor.
So I can show how absurd your assertion is with employees asking for ridiculous amounts of money, but you cannot do that in the opposite direction. Employees have protection by law, I'll say it again: unions are pointless at this point in time. Once they were necessary, but not anymore.
But, it's never just about pay. Work conditions have always been far more important. Unions look to make sure that employees can go for a piss outside of their lunchbreak, or so that they won't get work-related injuries. My lord, you'd swear we were talking about accountants the way you're talking!
What a crock. First of all, MOST people in the U.S. work for privately owned companies. I can't state that as fact about computer programmers, but I can state that as fact in general.
What, PLCs don't have shareholders? That's a new one on me. You mean to say nobody owns them? Wow!
Really? Well, what about theft? Murder? Breaking of Contract? The military has nothing to do with that. That's down to the government (who legislate) and the police and judiciary (who enforce).
What about public health and safety? And we're talking about laws to prevent listeria from getting into the food suppy because some food company can't be bothered taking the care to make sure their factories are kept clean. What about chemical companies who bury hazardous chemicals near residential areas. Do you think those communities have the power to get corporations to clean up the mess they left? Hardly! The government does. That is what the government is for.
A nation can do without a military, but it can't do without government, whatever the crypto-anarcho-capitalists think.
Look at hammurabi. It's exactly how he defined it. Regardless of what a particular constitution says (in fact, the constitution of my country states exactly what I wrote), government serves no other useful purpose but that.
Thing is, most unions are just fine. The number that get out of control is actually quite small compared to the total number. Most of the nonsense that get's bandied about on unions is quite simply an attempt to demonise them in the eyes of the 'middle class'. Remember, the US is a country where 90% of the population consider themselves middle class and yet 50% are below the poverty line.
You know the reason why Europe went 'socialist'? (though I'd better point out that social democracy is far from being socialism) The laissez-faire experiment of the 19th and early 20th centuries failed. People forgot that business is a tool of society, tolerated because it theoretically can help society improve the lot of its members efficently. This is the great thing about free enterprise.
What people forget is that government is there to protect those who can't protect themselves. It's not a tool of business, but a counterweight to balance it's excesses. If, for instance, chemical companies weren't regulated, they'd dump their waste wherever it was cheapest and most convenient, taking a short-term gain for itself in exchange for a medium- to long-term loss for itself. That's why government is there, and that's why free enterprise needs to be regulated.
Unions are another form of balance, a form of last resort for the worker when government doesn't work for them. They didn't just appear out of nowhere. The came about because workers felt they were getting a raw deal and deserved to have their lot in life improved. If you want to see a good reason why unions are necessary, go work in a catfish processing plant somewhere in the mississippi delta.
We don't have laws to prevent you and I from commiting crime. The majority of people rarely intentionally break the law. We need them to prevent and punish those who do step beyond the realm of what is good for society, who break society's contract of mutual respect.
Unfortunately, this isn't the way people think these days. More's the pity.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, it didn't. But it did mention "black stars", a name fitting both black holes *and* the dark energy stars described.
Use one of the previous doctors! It's reasonable enough. There's absolutely no reason why Rose couldn't end up Paul McGann, Richard E. Grant or Tom Baker.
None of the other doctors, mind you (shudder!).
As an Irishman, I want to slap you senseless.
There's absolutely *no* reason why they can't do this. I mean, if you've ever written an Windows installer before you know it's trivial to check to see if an application is installed and cause it to uninstall itself. I mean, what do people think the "Add/Remove Programs" dialogue box does? It checks the registry to get a list of intalled apps, and builds the list from what's in there. All the necessary details are in that cluster.
And that's only when you're thinking about standalone upgrades. And jeeze, it's not as if uninstalling FF or TB wipes all your data or anything.
And don't forget the Council of Ministers: they're as bad as the Commission.
You, sir, are a double karma whore, and should be disgusted with yourself for giving two, yes two, pieces of useful information in your post.
And I'm being Ha-Ha-Only-Serious on this one.
Bugger, hit submit rather than preview.
No I wasn't. I'm at home for christmas and all they have here is slow (and expensive) dialup. I was trying to be brief.
If the US Dollar is still the world currency, yes, but then my point was that that fact is far from permanent.
For now, but you've gotta love globalisation!
If it happens tomorrow or next year, yes. But you're missing my point: what I'm trying to get across is that economically the US's status as a superpower is slipping away. It's inevitable, and quite frankly the US has had a good innings since the start of the century.
Quax said everything else I need to say.
Back when I was still using RISC OS (an experience I would gladly go back to if I'd the money for a new machine), all our apps were packaged in their own directory. It all worked tremendously well! This page explains it well enough. There's no sense in me rehashing the whole thing here. Really, go take a read of that.
Oh, and I don't think the RISC OS FontManager's antialiasing has yet been beaten when it comes to quality. Nope, it's still the best font rendering engine around.
I don't think she did, really. She probably did something similar to what the PlaySID guys did and made the closest digital emulation she could.
Me? Sophie Wilson fan and former RISC OS user? Surely not! ;-)
You're right on the speed bit, but not the analogue: consider the SID. Now, the reason why that's such a bitch to emulate effectively is because it's almost horribly analogue.
Have you never played Delta?
Tell that to Chuck Moore. He designed his MISC processors on a shoe string, and managed to fab them quite cheaply.
The difference is he used an inexpensive fab process as he didn't need to scale things down quite as aggressivly as the likes of IBM, Texas Instruments, Intel, &c. need to. There are independent fabs out there, and the software for designing the chips is freely available: you don't need to use SPICE as there's plenty of cheaper alternatives.
You have (and I hope I'm not misinterpreting you either!). Mind you, Social Democracy isn't the same thing as socialism. All it is is an attempt to balance commerce with the best interests of society. The problem with Social Democracy in Europe is that it doesn't obey the Principle of Subsidiarity. Too much is vested in central government, and not enough in local government, communities, and individuals. Switzerland does things somewhat better in this regard than the rest of Europe. New Zealand used to be a good example of social democracy working, that is until a bunch of anarcho-capitalists decided on principle that state assets and services should be privatised regardless of how well they worked. Roads, hospitals, schools, utilities, you name it. The same kind of attitude in the UK lead to the destruction of one of the best rail networks in the world.
In any system of government, problems arise when the various parts become intertwined. It's hardly good to have people with connections with the chemical industry in charge of an environmental protection agency, or to have an ombudsman's office under the control of the agency they're supposed to be monitoring. The same goes for unions too, and government meddling in the affairs of the judiciary and regulatory industries. I'd say you'd agree with that.
Mind you, there are things we might not agree on. For instance, I think there should be a 100% estate tax on estates over EUR2.5m (an arbitrary figure, but it sounds fair enough). The principle is that a rich layabout is no better than a poor one, and layabouts shouldn't be encouraged. The idea that somebody can ride on the merits of an ancestor along, is mindboggling. Everybody, regardless of background, should have to prove their worth.
In short, I'm not a great lover of taxing earned income though. That discourages those who get off their asses to do something for themselves. But unearned income (inheritance, rents, dividends, etc.) I'd tax to the hilt.
Regulation and government are two different things. Government sets up regulatory bodies, and these bodies ensure that the sector they monitor is acting properly. Above them we have the ombudsmen as a recourse by the public and business if the regulatory bodies outstep their remit, or fail to uphold it. And, as you said, problems arise when anybody tries to disrupt these checks and balances.
Sorry for the ramble. I got a little offtopic!
Or some T'Pol-on-Hoshi lesbian action. Drool...
That's fair enough. The correct figure is actually 23%, but I'd misrembered it as 50%. I was tired, so I apologise. The argument it supported still stands.
No, I'm talking about Europe, but you could focus in on any part of it and you'll see it born out again and again. Marx and Engels' communism was a reaction against laissez-faire capitalism on the continent. The Fabians, Keynes, and a whole host of others in britain to. The anarchists. You name it. This was going on long before WW1, never mind WW2. Even before the European Coal and Steel Community (the precursor to the EU), social democratic policies were being taken on board by governments independently of one another. And remember, WW2 didn't really touch Sweden, and yet you still got SD.
My point was that European countries, the UK most of all, were the first places to really try laissez-faire, and it failed. Laissez-faire Capitalism and Communism have the same problem: they're systems only angels could live within. Captialism is just more robust. Both need to be tempered to avoid humanity's more unpleasant traits ruining the show. A free market is a good thing, but companies need to be accountable to society as a whole rather than just their shareholders.
I don't disagree with you. That's the point behind this whole crazy democracy racket we've got going. It's a vain attempt to ensure government is accountable. Elected officials are the counterweight to the permanent government that's (in theory) supposed to make sure they do what's in society's interests. Of course, that only works if the electorate stays on the heels of their representatives. But you know what Churchill said about democracy...
That's true. You see, I don't think either are wrong. Human enterprise is to be encouraged, but it also needs to be regulated so that it does the minimum of harm. Not all businessmen are Bernard Rapaport!
What I mean is that Jim and Alice aren't liable to go and break into Fred's house, but Paul might and the legislation is there to prevent him from doing so. Equally, Alice might like to speed, and there's legislation for her too, but Paul might be quite a safe driver. Laws are there for those who would break their contract with the rest of society, not for those who wouldn't.
Exactly!
You're talking about white-collar workers. Most unions are blue-collar. It's hard physical work. Why do you think I mentioned the fish processing factory? Programmers complain about RSI, but the women who work in those places end up with the hands of seventy-year-olds by the time they're thirty. And for shit wages too.
Personally, I like working for a company that treats me properly. I don't care about getting a huge six-figure salary, but I do want enough so that I and my family can live comfortably on. That's all.
No, they pay as little as they can get away with. If people were paid what their labour was worth, there'd be, by definition, next to no profits!
Yes, some do. But using the same brush to tar them all is just nonsense. Next thing you'll be telling me that everybody in Wyoming is just like the Marlboro man!
And tell me: who can really justify paying top-level management the salaries they get. I mean, after a certain point, it becomes ridiculous. I mean, I can't see how any VP makes more than seven (arbitrary number, mind you) times more than one of the plebs on the factory floor.
But, it's never just about pay. Work conditions have always been far more important. Unions look to make sure that employees can go for a piss outside of their lunchbreak, or so that they won't get work-related injuries. My lord, you'd swear we were talking about accountants the way you're talking!
What, PLCs don't have shareholders? That's a new one on me. You mean to say nobody owns them? Wow!
Really? Well, what about theft? Murder? Breaking of Contract? The military has nothing to do with that. That's down to the government (who legislate) and the police and judiciary (who enforce).
What about public health and safety? And we're talking about laws to prevent listeria from getting into the food suppy because some food company can't be bothered taking the care to make sure their factories are kept clean. What about chemical companies who bury hazardous chemicals near residential areas. Do you think those communities have the power to get corporations to clean up the mess they left? Hardly! The government does. That is what the government is for.
A nation can do without a military, but it can't do without government, whatever the crypto-anarcho-capitalists think.
Defined by average income, that's true, but in a country with as big an income differencial as the US, the median income is a better one.
And yes, I realise these things are relative, but we're talking about one country and one country only.
Look at hammurabi. It's exactly how he defined it. Regardless of what a particular constitution says (in fact, the constitution of my country states exactly what I wrote), government serves no other useful purpose but that.
You know the reason why Europe went 'socialist'? (though I'd better point out that social democracy is far from being socialism) The laissez-faire experiment of the 19th and early 20th centuries failed. People forgot that business is a tool of society, tolerated because it theoretically can help society improve the lot of its members efficently. This is the great thing about free enterprise.
What people forget is that government is there to protect those who can't protect themselves. It's not a tool of business, but a counterweight to balance it's excesses. If, for instance, chemical companies weren't regulated, they'd dump their waste wherever it was cheapest and most convenient, taking a short-term gain for itself in exchange for a medium- to long-term loss for itself. That's why government is there, and that's why free enterprise needs to be regulated.
Unions are another form of balance, a form of last resort for the worker when government doesn't work for them. They didn't just appear out of nowhere. The came about because workers felt they were getting a raw deal and deserved to have their lot in life improved. If you want to see a good reason why unions are necessary, go work in a catfish processing plant somewhere in the mississippi delta.
We don't have laws to prevent you and I from commiting crime. The majority of people rarely intentionally break the law. We need them to prevent and punish those who do step beyond the realm of what is good for society, who break society's contract of mutual respect.
Unfortunately, this isn't the way people think these days. More's the pity.